Skip to main content

Web 2.0 For Dummies - part4: What is Web 2.0?

This post is the forth post in the "Web 2.0 for dummies" posts, based on my Web 2.0 presentation in a conference.

The following image depicts the Meme map build in O’reilly’s brainstorming.
This is the first and original Web 2.0 Meme map.
It should be noted that the model is a developing model with no explicit boundaries.








The central part includes the gravitational elements which are definitely the core of Web 2.0.
The Web as a platform mentioned in the previous post is one of that gravitational elements and not just one of the elements but a very important element.
The lower part in near to purple color includes principles, ideas and concepts.
The upper part (dark green) includes services examples and principles related specifically to some of them.
O’reilly’s model is not the only model. There are other Meme Maps.
Analyzing and comparing different Meme Maps is beyond the scope of this post. However, the multitude of models together with the flexible boundaries enables many vendors to label their services and products as Web 2.0, although in some cases they are very far from the Web 2.0 model.
Some of the main characteristics of Web 2.0 are cited in the following bullets:
  • Uncontrolled (by vendors) Standards Based Platform
    The standards of the Web platform are not controlled by any infrastructure vendor or Web 2.0 vendor. As result of this characteristic Web 2.0 communities, companies and service providers use standards based solutions applicable to most of possible infrastructure solutions in the Web. Usually the technologies and architectures used for Web 2.0 services are relatively less complex.

  • Social Computing

Many Web 2.0 projects and services context is social. Such as professional or social networks. Other Web 2.0 initiatives includes social interactions as well.

  • Sharing Communities

Sharing could be the most important aspect of Web 2.0: Community members are contributing content, comments, voting, alerting about improper content etc. Notice that contributing is not limited to publishing content or code, but to other participation activities, such as rating.

Each Community has its interaction rules and patterns. The Community creates and improves "products". The cost model of building the "products" is a model which includes minimal or no costs for human resources. A community process is more democratic and more chaotic than a directed and controlled process within a company. This difference is reflected in the products: more innovative and creative but more volatile.
The notions of Community and Sharing imply trust in community members (sometimes without a known identity). It also includes build in Sharing ethics.

  • The Hyperlinks are the Network

In a paraphrase of the old Sun slogan "The network is the Computer" we can say that "The hyperlinks are the network". Use of hyperlinks is one of the foundations of navigating between pages in the Web2.0 cyberspace or the global network.

  • The user controls his data

From the vast amount of scattered data the user choose his data and controls it as part of his content or services. This it a two edges sword: In one hand the user has high degree of freedom, but on the other hand he has more responsibility and may use incorrect or outdated data.

other important concepts which will be introduced in future posts are Mashups and Longtail.


Potential for a lot of innovation, creativity, collaboration and cooperation is embedded in the culture of Web 2.0. However, there are many considerations: improper behavior, breach of trust and technical issues. The actual realization of breach of trust is varied according to the specific Web 2.0 project, service and community type.
The following problems are common to Web 2.0 projects:

Potential for a lot of innovation, creativity, collaboration and cooperation is embedded in the culture of Web 2.0. However, there are many considerations: improper behavior, breach of trust and technical issues. The actual realization of breach of trust is varied according to the specific Web 2.0 project, service and community type.
The following problems are common to Web 2.0 projects:

  • Intentional improper content insertion
  • Copyrights issues
  • Unintentional wrong content or code insertion
  • Intentional commercial bias
  • Criminal acts
  • Incomplete data or solutions
  • Non Systematic and not fully robust implementations

The next posts will focus on specific Web 2.0 projects. The patterns for creating value in each of them are different but share common attributes.
There is also commonality between problems different Web 2.0 communities face. The specific manifestation of that problems and specific mitigation varies.
Please keep in mind the common attributes and considerations, while reading the next posts.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The mainframe: still alive and kicking

Recently, I was interviewed by  Pcon   (unfortunately the link points to an Hebrew only site) as part of debriefing on Legacy Systems.  Pcon is an Israeli company investigating IT topics by quoting professional articles and interviewing experts. They publish the results of the investigations including practical recommendations. This post is mainly about topics raised by me during the interview, but not included in the debriefing, which will be published.    What are Legacy Systems? The term Legacy Systems refers to old application systems and/or veteran technologies still in use.  Usually, the term Legacy Systems is associated with: 1. Mainframe Hardware e.g. IBM System z and its Operating Systems or Proprietary Servers and Operating Systems such as HP Alpha and OpenVMS Operating System, IBM AS/400 and OS/400   Operating System. 2. Development and Production Environments, e.g. COBOL , Natural and DBMS systems such as Adabas  ...
16 comments
Read more

Will Business and IT Aligned?

For decades we are talking about closing the gap between business and IT , but the gap is still as wide as it was. In the beginning of the ERP era, we focused on aligning Business Processes and Core Systems, but in most enterprises we failed. SOA was the next alignment promise: defining the SOA Services in Business boundaries instead of Technical boundaries, should narrow the gap. However, despite of SOA Business Value ( Agility and Reuse )  in most enterprises,  the large Business-IT Gap remained as large as it was.  The IT Community aimed at the next alignment attempt: SOA is technical and BPM is its Business related complement.  Will the current BPM based alignment attempt succeed? I do not know, but Nick Heath's article  titled: Stop doing what the vendors tell you, CIOs told , published in  Tech Republic , suggests that the root of the problem is not Technological .   Stop Doing What the vendors Tell You Nick Heath's article is based ...
11 comments
Read more

Vendors Survival: Will Software AG Survive until 2019?

This post is another post in the Vendors Survival series following posts on Microsoft , Google , HP , Sun and EMC . On July 14 th Software AG and IDS Scheer announced that Software AG is going to take over IDS Scheer . The intended acquisition is an opportunity to add another post in my Vendors Survival posts series. A brief history of Software AG Mainframe products Software AG is larger than any German software company except SAP . It was established in the Mainframe age (in 1969). I worked with many customers, who used and some of them are still using, its two flagship products Adabas and Natural . Although these products support many platforms, their main platform is IBM Mainframe. Adabas is a database and Natural is a development environment. Like other pairs of Database and Development Environment in the mainframe environment (e.g. Ideal and Datacom , Mantis and Supra) build by the same vendor, they are tied together. As a result, although it is possible t...
8 comments
Read more